Did you know that the original church/religion of Christianity was Catholicism? All other Christian religions are ones that were formed by people who decided to break away from it, so by your logic, all Christians should be Catholics in order to be true Christians......

Not true, actually. What is known today as the Orthodox Church was the first, one with Catholics until 1057. Then the Catholic Church split from them.

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree w/you on that. The 1st reference of any Church was the Catholic Church in 107 A.D. by a bishop by the name of St. Ignatius of Antioch, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Also, I'm not quite sure where u got the date of 1057, but I think the popular myth is that the formal "split" actually began at 1054. However, even that, I believe, is debatable. Here's why (in a nutshell). In 1054, Cardinal Humbert laid a bull of excommunication against the patriarch of Constantinople at the time, Patriarch Cerularius. So Cerularius and only him was supposedly excommunicated. However, even that is very much debated since the bull wasn't even signed, nor seen by the Pope, as he was dead at the time. In response, Cerularius retaliated by anathematizing Cardinal Humbert (but NOT the Roman Church - he abstained from any attack on the pope or the Latin Church). This dispute, among others, remained something of which ordinary Christians (the laity) in East and West were largely unaware. It actually wasn't until the 1450s, when the "formal split" actually occurred when most of the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome, and this is the split that persists to this day.

Ah yes, sorry. I did mean to say 1054, not 57.
The particular name quoted in 107 does not mean much, considering the word "catholic" means universal. The Orthodox Church is catholic, just not Roman Catholic.
The Western Church gave the order - they caused the split. The Eastern Church literally sent a messenger running after the Western one saying "Why are you doing this? Take it back!" and they refused.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter anyway. It's just misinformation to say the Roman Catholic church was the original one, because it wasn't.
When you observe them in practice, the Orthodox Church has retained a lot more tradition and runs itself much more like the early church did too, without adding doctrine like the Roman church likes to.

Did you know that the original church/religion of Christianity was Catholicism? All other Christian religions are ones that were formed by people who decided to break away from it, so by your logic, all Christians should be Catholics in order to be true Christians......

Not true, actually. What is known today as the Orthodox Church was the first, one with Catholics until 1057. Then the Catholic Church split from them.

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree w/you on that. The 1st reference of any Church was the Catholic Church in 107 A.D. by a bishop by the name of St. Ignatius of Antioch, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Also, I'm not quite sure where u got the date of 1057, but I think the popular myth is that the formal "split" actually began at 1054. However, even that, I believe, is debatable. Here's why (in a nutshell). In 1054, Cardinal Humbert laid a bull of excommunication against the patriarch of Constantinople at the time, Patriarch Cerularius. So Cerularius and only him was supposedly excommunicated. However, even that is very much debated since the bull wasn't even signed, nor seen by the Pope, as he was dead at the time. In response, Cerularius retaliated by anathematizing Cardinal Humbert (but NOT the Roman Church - he abstained from any attack on the pope or the Latin Church). This dispute, among others, remained something of which ordinary Christians (the laity) in East and West were largely unaware. It actually wasn't until the 1450s, when the "formal split" actually occurred when most of the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome, and this is the split that persists to this day.

Ah yes, sorry. I did mean to say 1054, not 57.
The particular name quoted in 107 does not mean much, considering the word "catholic" means universal. The Orthodox Church is catholic, just not Roman Catholic.
The Western Church gave the order - they caused the split. The Eastern Church literally sent a messenger running after the Western one saying "Why are you doing this? Take it back!" and they refused.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter anyway. It's just misinformation to say the Roman Catholic church was the original one, because it wasn't.
When you observe them in practice, the Orthodox Church has retained a lot more tradition and runs itself much more like the early church did too, without adding doctrine like the Roman church likes to.

Unless you're taking an very long-winded approach to saying that the church should be naming children, I think you've sidetracked this thread a little bit.

Anyways, it should be an mutual agreement/comprimise.

Though I will add that if any of the parents wants to name their child after some type of fast food or anything equally dumb they should, by law, have their naming rights removed.

Some of the names going around now a days.. Sweet moonlamp, glitter, Bieber (as a first name!?), Stealth, Rusp, Gay etc etc.. Just to name a few, the ones I mentioned are real names of real life babies/children that I've actually met. And parents wonder why their children gets bullied.. People really need to consider the kids when giving them names, they're the ones that'll have to live with it..

Did you know that the original church/religion of Christianity was Catholicism? All other Christian religions are ones that were formed by people who decided to break away from it, so by your logic, all Christians should be Catholics in order to be true Christians......

Not true, actually. What is known today as the Orthodox Church was the first, one with Catholics until 1057. Then the Catholic Church split from them.

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree w/you on that. The 1st reference of any Church was the Catholic Church in 107 A.D. by a bishop by the name of St. Ignatius of Antioch, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Also, I'm not quite sure where u got the date of 1057, but I think the popular myth is that the formal "split" actually began at 1054. However, even that, I believe, is debatable. Here's why (in a nutshell). In 1054, Cardinal Humbert laid a bull of excommunication against the patriarch of Constantinople at the time, Patriarch Cerularius. So Cerularius and only him was supposedly excommunicated. However, even that is very much debated since the bull wasn't even signed, nor seen by the Pope, as he was dead at the time. In response, Cerularius retaliated by anathematizing Cardinal Humbert (but NOT the Roman Church - he abstained from any attack on the pope or the Latin Church). This dispute, among others, remained something of which ordinary Christians (the laity) in East and West were largely unaware. It actually wasn't until the 1450s, when the "formal split" actually occurred when most of the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome, and this is the split that persists to this day.

Ah yes, sorry. I did mean to say 1054, not 57.
The particular name quoted in 107 does not mean much, considering the word "catholic" means universal. The Orthodox Church is catholic, just not Roman Catholic.
The Western Church gave the order - they caused the split. The Eastern Church literally sent a messenger running after the Western one saying "Why are you doing this? Take it back!" and they refused.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter anyway. It's just misinformation to say the Roman Catholic church was the original one, because it wasn't.
When you observe them in practice, the Orthodox Church has retained a lot more tradition and runs itself much more like the early church did too, without adding doctrine like the Roman church likes to.

Unless you're taking an very long-winded approach to saying that the church should be naming children, I think you've sidetracked this thread a little bit.

Unless you were of that time and understood the language of origin as it was spoken at that time, you can't say I'm wrong, you can only say you have differing ideas on the subject.

Reading another person's interpreting and suggesting that it's the true way of understanding the subject, is like saying I believe in sea monsters because some experienced, wise and adept seamen said they existed.

Remember, not everyone agreed, has agreed or will agree to the exact meaning of most of what the bible contains, not even these Greek scholars. I believe it was purposefully meant to be vague so that rulers and religious authorities could use it for their own specific purposes, whilst having it remain a unifying book of rules. Hence all the changes and different versions over the centuries.

As for the bible being contradictory, of course. That's what it does. There are so many examples of hypocrisy and contradiction, I don't even know why people bother with it.

So, you're saying I was right about Christianity teaching that the women should be subservient to her husband? If so, what's the problem? My point stands.

My second response.

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

I apologize for this back and forth we seem to have started. You say that unless I understand the time period and the language, then I can’t say you’re wrong, just that I have different ideas. Yet, you criticize me for using a commentary (written by individuals who do understand the time period and language). Could you please clarify exactly what you mean? Bear in mind that I never said commentaries were infallible, only that they are probably closer to the author’s true intent. Especially if you use multiple sources. Out of curiosity, do you hold the same view on commentaries of Shakespeare, Homer, or Dante?

However, I wasn’t trying to prove that anything you personally believe is wrong, I was trying to prove that what you believed about what Christians believe is wrong. Or are you implying that you are more of an authority on my beliefs than I am.

Now, with regard to the majority of your response (about different interpretations, translations, and contradictions), this falls within the issue of the accuracy and inerrancy of scripture. I would be happy to discuss that with you, but not in this forum. If you really want to talk about it, shoot me a message and I’d be more than happy to go in depth into this issue with you.

But what I really want to address is your final remark. First, I never said that wives should be subservient to their husbands, but rather submissive - as in - voluntarily relinquishing authority. Second, your point does not stand. Your point, if I recall correctly, was that in a Christian marriage the husband names the child, whereas in a non-Christian marriage, the matter is discussed in a civilized manner. I argued that this is not the case, first by appealing to the spirit of marriage, wherein both partners treat the other as they would want to be treated. Thus, a husband should not force his input on his wife to the exclusion of her own, as that is disrespectful and un-loving. I then gave direct scriptural support by citing an instance where the wife names her child, thus proving that even in the time period, women had an active role in naming children.

I suspect you are extrapolating from my claim "wives are to be submissive to their husbands" that "husbands make all of the decisions" or perhaps "husbands are over their wives". If this is the case, then all I can say is that we have different interpretations of what Biblical submission is, as well as what the husband's responsibilities to his wife are. Those who demonstrate submission and humility are actually more highly valued from a Christian perspective. Depending on how you view Biblical submission, wives may actually be more esteemed than their husbands. As a matter of fact, Christ himself is actually held as the epitome of submission, yet he is the Lord of all mankind from a Christian perspective. I can't go into too much detail on this either, but once again, if you want to discuss it, shoot me a message and I’ll be more than happy to talk about It with you ^.^